FEBRUARY UPDATE> MIKE'S TRAIN HOUSE DCC LAWSUIT

[Big_Boy_4005]

Well guys, it seems like the only one in this conversation who can vote is ME. Unless, I missed something everyone else is in HO. I don't own a lot of MTH stuff either, and with a few exceptions, it was picked up in the secondary market on eBay, and what wasn't was purchased before the release of DCS.

Grayhound, I'm not mad at you. I can sense your frustration with this whole issue. Here's a little background. The 3 rail market has come a long way in the last 10 years, and full scale equipment is really catching on. Lionel started making some. Weaver, who has been making stuff for years, started marketing to 3 rail. Atlas, whom I know and love from my time in HO and N, saw the opportuinty and restarted their O line bigger and better than ever. Then of course there's MTH.

The semi scale stuff is still important though, because it can be used on tighter curves, and not everyone has the kind of space that I have. There are a lot of people out there that have a 4 x 8 sheet of plywood.

MTH has 3 basic product lines, Tinplate which is mainly reproductions of sheet metal prewar trains. Rail King, which is the smaller "semi scale" cars and engines, and are easily spotted at train shows in their yellow boxes. And finally Permier, which is the stuff that I like, and comes in purple boxes. It's the RailKing and Premier engines that come with DCS that are the source of the trouble, and that I DON'T BUY.

VSmith, was talking about patents and the patent office, and I thought of something interesting. When the patent office was started, everything was MECHANICAL. People took patents on their gizmos. All of that has changed as a result of modern technology. Does anyone know if there is actually anything more than a clever use of existing electronic parts involved in this mess? MDEMT[?] By the way, the coupler is nothing new, Lionel has had that technology since 1942, maybe earlier.

[soapbox]Finally, here's some food for thought. The size of the market interested in DCS, is probably one tenth the size of the market interested in DCC. To the best of my knowlege MTH has no plans to get into the HO market, which means that they are just being a bunch of f [censored] a [censored] h [censored] about this whole thing.
Right GC?[:D][;)]

Actually the more I think about it, the more I think that someone needs to just challenge the patent, bring it to court and make MTH PROVE THAT THEY INVENTED SOMETHING NEW!!!! The easy way to do that is to produce the product, and let them come, but be prepared to fight. Who knows, this may all be a bluff.

Is MTH willing to spend the money on legal fees to defend what sounds like a questionable patent?

[AntonioFP45]

A number of you have given all of us a GREAT WEALTH of information on the inner workings of the patent process. A special salute to Mdemt! Thanks!

Another contributer made a very "sobering point". IMHO, regardless whether MTH wins or loses, DCC's advancement will likelyindeed be affected. Manufacturers may become more "tight lipped" about sharing new developments and advancements with each other. With this situation, who can blame them? It will cost all of us, including MTH. 

Does anyone know if there if there is a websight that shows the progress or status on this lawsuit filed by Mike's Train House? Is it in Maryland? If so, has a date been scheduled for hearing(s) in court yet? Since lawsuits are public record, it may stand to reason that the info may be available as per "the freedom of information act".

Peace!

[sundayniagara]

Any news/updates on this subject?
Mark

[MudHen_462]

Once again, this newbie is "just looking for an answer".... I am returning to the hobby after a 40 years absence, and have my benchwork, track and DCC system just about set up. However, I have had on order for almost four months now, a BLI Mikado 2-8-2 (GN), and a BLI model E-7A (GN)... with apparently no delivery date in sight.

Is there any possibility of the NMRA (or another group) acting as a "clearing house" for all new developments in this litagation ? This forum has been great, but maybe we could get some direct information that way.... or do you think it would only become a "media" outlet for the parties involved ? I agree with AntonioFP45, "we need a source for updates on this subject".
Thanks.....
Iron Goat (Engine-less in Kansas City)

[AntonioFP45]

One bit of good news in the "AHEAD IN THE FUTURE CATEGORY".

A close friend of mine who is a professional in the computer consultant industry strongly feels that in the not too distant future, DCC manufacturers will be able to sell cheaper DCC "sound capable" decoders that will have the basic "Bare Essential CVs". Modelers will go to a Model Railroad "Sound" web site and be able to download specific: Diesel Horns, Steam Whistles, Prime Movers, Exhaust, Chuffs Brake Squeals, etc. and using a personal PC with a DCC type interface, "custom-program" his or her sound/motor decoder. Equipping locomotives with sound in any scale would be very cheap and there would be a big surge in modelers with sound on their railroads!

The technology is ALREADY AVAILABLE. It's a matter of a manufacturer willing to assess profitability, market demand, and to be willing to get involved in the long, costly paperwork process to make this happen. An software engineer that I met at my LHS made a similar prediction. What's nice about this is that it would basically "chop off" a lot of the tentacles that the MTH lawsuit currently has on DCC. Hopefully Soundtraxx, Digitraxx and Lenz are already "looking down the line" as far as feasability.

I was skeptical at first until the engineer reminded me of the "Recordable CD", "MP3 files"and the "CD Burner". These are cheap, readily available and just a little over a decade ago were just consumer fantasies.

[AntonioFP45]

Latest Update for the Tsunami decoder release is June 2004. You can still pre-order the one amp Tsunami for $138 from LItchfield Station instead of the regular $179 retail price.

From the input I've gotten from dealers that went to the demo, the steamer sound is dynamic and very crisp. Modelers won't be dissappointed.

[BRAKIE]

Well,guys simply put if I design,made and patented a item and another company copied it dang right I would want my royalties.why should the other companies make a profit on my design and I don't receive my fair share?.

Answer honestly..How many of you would do the same? Would you let any company make money off of your invented and patented item..
Perhaps you should check to see who the villain(s) is before passing judgment?

[bcammack]

If somebody managed to get a patent on a broad, vague technical notion that has prior art, should they be allowed to defend it an demand compensation from everybody?

[Anonymous]

My reply to Mr. Andy Elderman, V.P. - Marketing @ MTH

I see this is your first post, so welcome to Model Railroader Forum. I hope you can stand the heat.
Apparently not many folks who are model railroaders support MTH.

QUOTE: Andy Edleman
Vice President - Marketing
M.T.H. Electric Trains First and foremost, with the exception of a counter suit against QS Industries (QSI), M.T.H. has not sued any DCC manufacturer for violations against any M.T.H. patents. There are many rumors floating around in cyberspace that M.T.H. is threatening or is suing all DCC manufacturers. That is simply not true

Sorry Mr. Elderman, that, and your third statment, doesn't make me feel good about the future.

QUOTE: Secondly, M.T.H. is not claiming any patents on the concept of Back EMF as has been reported recently. Back EMF has been in existence for years and is not applicable to our technology. It was simply referenced as an existing form of speed control in our patents and some folks misread these patents and assumed we are claiming it as our own invention.

I'll wait to see what is argued in court to believe this statment.

QUOTE: Third, M.T.H. did recently send out letters to DCC manufacturers in the model railroading community who are developing or utilizing technology that may violate our U.S. Patents. These letters were meant to advise them of possible conflicts with our patents that cover 2-way communications and speed control in 1 scale mile per hour increments. These are the only issues we have alerted the DCC community about.

Well Mr.Elderman, how do you think those roumors, that you mentioned in your first statment, got started? "ADVISE THEM" ? That's leagalese - spin doctor - double talk for threat. You wouldn't happen to be Saddam Hussein's former Minister of Information would you?

QUOTE: Fourth, not one of the DCC firms has yet to respond to our letters or has inquired about the possibilities of a potential licensing arrangement. Frankly, any DCC firm that has informed consumers that M.T.H. has filed suit against them is not revealing all of the facts and one should at least question their motives if they have indeed told you this was the case.

Why would other DCC firms be interested in a licencing arrangment if they believe their products do not infringe on MTH patents? Almost sounds like extortion.
As for DCC firms revealing that they have a pending law suite, they have to tell their customers why they can not release their product. I wouldn't expect them to tell MTH's side of the story either. I'm sure they are advised by their attorneys to limit their statments. Is there anything specific you would like to claim they had done? Click on QSI Press Release.

I prefer to do buisness with companies whose philosophy is to share technology to help grow the market.
For example, this is from the FAQ on the Lenz Elektronik, GmbH website:

QUOTE:
Why is Lenz releasing this technology to the NMRA DCC Working Group?

Three reasons.

1) The future of multi-manufacturer DCC depends on all manufacturers working closely with the NMRA DCC Working Group to enhance DCC in an orderly fashion. To fully realize the full potential of RailCom will require multiple manufacturers to implement the protocols.

2) To gain the full potential we will need some additional packets and we feel that these should be created in a joint fashion.

3) NMRA DCC is not a static control system, but one which can grow for many years to come. To gain the benefits we have all enjoyed for the future means that we must plan for the growth now.

But don't you loose your competitive advantage by releasing your intellectual property to the NMRA DCC Working Group?

We have no problems competing in an open market. We believe that standards help the overall market grow and as the market grows we also grow. While it is true that we have invested a lot of time and resources into the development of RailCom, we believe our investment can best be realized by worldwide adoption of this technology.

What if the NMRA DCC Working Group changes the technology?

No problem. If the NMRA improves on the technology, then of course we will adopt it.

Now that gives me a warm fuzzy feeling. Lenz is doing something good for the hobby. MTH just worries me.

QUOTE: A review of the patent's language will enlighten those who feel our claims are baseless and indicate the level of prior art we provided to the U.S. Patent Office to substantiate the claims in the first place.

That is for the court to decide. I'm not an attorney and I have no opinion on weather or not MTH has a valid claim. The documents you refer to can be interpreted many different ways as there are people reading them. I'm sure though the attorneys for MTH will argue in favor of MTH.

QUOTE:
M.T.H. encourages each DCC firm (or any individual for that matter) to bring forth evidence now that our claims are in fact invalid.

Either the attorneys for other DCC firms or individuals believe that MTH has nothing that will stand up in court and are not willing to commit resources in such a pursuit. or they may be waiting to see what happens in pending litigation.

QUOTE:
M.T.H. invested over $3.5 million dollars in the development of our Proto-Sound 2.0 and DCS Digital Command Systems.

What, if anything, has MTH done for the model railroading community except make millions from it?

QUOTE:
We developed these products because we felt that the current technology standards at the time were no longer innovative enough to attract new hobbyists into model railroading.

That sound like a load of $[-]!+. New customers is what you mean. Is MTH willing to submit their superior technology to the NMRA to set a new standard?

QUOTE:
To stand pat and allow any and all competitors to develop or utilize similar products based on the ground breaking developments we created would be an incredible waste of our efforts

Similar products? That's open to interpretation isn't it? Ground breaking? Hardly. What was groung breaking was the availability of micro processors. I know MTH didn't invent that.

QUOTE:
If our efforts are as unique as we believe, they should be protected under patent law.

I'll give you that. But nothing good for the hobby will come of it.

QUOTE:
Finally, M.T.H. would encourage consumers to stop and consider that there may be a better way to operate and enjoy model trains than what exists today.

Yes, you're right there is. However it's not the MTH way.
I really don't know what MTH is doing, but I do know they seem to be making a lot of enemies.

[AntonioFP45]

Gsetter,[8D]

It's great to know that a company like Lenz is committed to expanding, enhancing and improving the DCC world.[^]

You worded your responses to Mr. Edelman's comments were exceptionally well writtten, point by point, without the "vague jargon" often given in situtations similar to this one.

[Anonymous]

NO wonder evey thing is so expensive in Amercica so I'll Move to Canada when I can

DOGGY

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by AntonioFP45

Gsetter,[8D]

It's great to know that a company like Lenz is committed to expanding, enhancing and improving the DCC world.[^]

You worded your responses to Mr. Edelman's comments were exceptionally well writtten, point by point, without the "vague jargon" often given in situtations similar to this one.

Thanks.
Lenz involvement with the NMRA and their philosophy is a great example to other companies.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Doggy

NO wonder evey thing is so expensive in Amercica so I'll Move to Canada when I can

DOGGY

Hold on there little DOGGY. Canada is a LOT more expensive to live in eh!
Better go south to Mexico, se!

[nblum]

"First and foremost, with the exception of a counter suit against QS Industries (QSI), M.T.H. has not sued any DCC manufacturer for violations against any M.T.H. patents"

Strange to say, within a few weeks of this post, it was no longer true :).

[Anonymous]

I have read this thread and thought on it a few days. I have several BLI HO Locomotives on my list and will add them to my collection this year.

There will always be trains and sound on em. The massive legal suits are way above me, I consider myself an "Ant"

IMHO the public release statement by MTH is Baloney. Nice spin and careful use of words to create a soothing effect to ward off angry mobs of modelers with torches. All Baloney.

I am probably going to hunt for pre-lawsuit BLI engines. I think those will be quite valuable someday.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by HighIron2003ar

I..... I consider myself an "Ant".

Ever see the 1954 "B" movie called "THEM"?
Giant ants found in the atomic bomb test area attempt to take over the world.
Special appearence by the Santa Fe railroad!

[AntonioFP45]

Rogermoore,

You were inquiring about the delay in the Surroundtraxx's release.

While there are some technical related problems, this lawsuit may be part of the reason for the delay as manufacturers have to "play the game" and consult with legal experts to make sure that they're not going to wind up "entangled" in more MTH style legal messes.

Just e-mail Bruce at:

[e-mail]

He's been very good about answering questions regarding this situation, as well as any technical questions DCC modelers may have.

Hang in there Amigo, Peace out!

[robengland]

Has everyone forgotten Kadee's twenty year monopoly on knuckle couplers? Now they are much-loved good ol' boys with a fine reputation in the industry...

That said, I just sent an angry email to MTH. I'm just making the point that it isn't the first time and it didn't do us much harm last time.

[Anonymous]

Hi Guys,

posted a link to this dread on an Dutch RR-forum to see what they think.

http://www.beneluxrail.net/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=62207#62207

(sorry its in Dutch only)

Rgds
Cor

[Anonymous]

Bye the way,

QUOTE: [i]Originally posted by rails5
(also coupler activation but as an HO modeler that's Greek to me

This is "hot stuff" in Europe (well... at least in Holland and Germany) at the moment. [:)]

http://member.ycn.com/~krois/

Although i admit it’s based on European couplers. [:p]

Krgds
Cor

[Anonymous]

Cor, sorry but totally irrelevant in this thread...

Okay, being from Europe I have no idea how the US Patent Office and US legal system works, so my 2 ¢ might be a bunch of crap.

I know that Lenz submitted a working prototype of their RailCom system to the NMRA in 2002. That means that Lenz spend time and money in the preceding year (at least) developing it. I admit I didn't read the MTH patent so I don't know the timeframe they started with this 'bi-directional stuff'. If MTH couldn't proof 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that they concluded their development _prior_ to Lenz' submittion of their RailCom system, Lenz might argue that MTH 'borrowed' some of the RailCom techniques in their own system. That would mean the end of this legal battle as MTH then has no ground for a patent: parts of that patent belong to another mfg.... As stated, I have no idea if I'm on the right track (sic [;)]) here. Btw, Lenz is a German company and any US patent has no legal rights in Europe (as is the opposite [;)])

@moderators: I choose Forummaster as an alias as I was a Forummaster (of a Dutch forum) then, but with no intend to participate in this forum. Times changed, but I'm afraid I cannot change my alias as I did with my emailadress. Thus no disrespect on my behalf, but do you have advise on changing this situation?

Regards, M.V. Wesstein
the Netherlands

[the-big-blow]

Come on now. And I quote " tempted to blow up MTH headquarters" . Under the Orwellian Bush administration with a statement like that you could be treated as a terrorist. We live in a world we have to watch what we say. Even though I sympathetic to you frustrations on this subject a little restraint gotta watch it before the SS (secret service) shows up at your door. (Just Joking don't take this post seriously)

[Anonymous]

As an ex-HO modeller and now an ardent HiRailer (that is full scale O scale models on three rail track) I am really upset by the recent lawsuits by MTH. I met Mike Wolf earlier this spring when he was touring local hobby shops in the area. There were no other customers in the shop so I got to spend almost an hour one on one with Mike Wolf. He is very personable and good humored. He demonstrated DCS on the hobby shop layout for me. He ran a Lionel diesel (UP by the way) and a MTH diesel. At first he wasn't sure if the UP diesel was MTH or Lionel until we inspected it. He pointed out that MTH locomotives were set up to increase speed at one mph increments,and that it was possible to clock the speed of a MTH engine with a stopwatch to verify that it was going at the rate shown on the control. The subject turned to the lawsuits especially in regard to my BLI On30 2-8-0. He said his only beef was that it also increased speed at one mph increments. I asked if that was all."That's it", he replied. I asked if he would complain if the speed would increase by something other than one mph increments (one kilometer per hour for example) and he said that would be OK. I asked him if he was suing Lionel et al about their speed controls and he said no, Lionel was OK with him. I thought about asking him how he could patent a rate of acceleration but I didn't want to be argumentative. He seems like such a nice man it makes one wonder if when he is alone he turns into some Gollum-like monster who looks at the model railroading hobby and says, "Preciouss-ssss! It's mine...all mine...", Maybe he doesn't care what we O gaugers think, but my collection of 25 brass HO steam engines allows me to speak as an HO gauger and say that he is killing himself in his attempt to enter the HO market especially when he is planning to market DCS adapted for HO. He is making himself hated by a large segment of the model railroading hobby. Sad because he has much to offer but will find that he can't jam things down our throats. Too bad. Odd-d

[AntonioFP45]

Odd-d,

Interesting,

Many times in life we'll meet "nice people" that can be "not so cool", business professionals.

Now that this suit with Lionel seems to be winding down, I wonder how the outcome of the QSI lawsuit turns out. This is the suit that, depending on the outcome, will affect DCC, especially in the HO market.

[Anonymous]

MTH better get a lot of money from lawsuits ... I doubt that they will get much more from model railroaders !!!

[AntonioFP45]

Seems that the rumors are coming true about MTH getting into the HO market with their "DCS" system! It appears that MTH was planning to get into the HO market from the get go. Regardless of the debates, the bottom line is that BEMF and the related "concepts" (control in 1 mph increments using back emf?) is not a uniquely revolutionary concept.  

As pointed out to me by a computer industry expert, there have been countless electrical devices that produce BEMF for several decades, a noteable example being the VCR! The "idea" of using the BEMF produced by electronic devices is not new.

Based on MTH's litigation tactics with regard to DCC's advancement, I have absoluetly no intention of purchasing or supporting any MTH products, including their "DCS" technology products. Apparently, many of you have shared similar sentiments.

Guys, this isn't about "being vengeful" it's about sending the message to "Mike" and his lawyers that all they've done is hurt the hobby. Who's going to pay? US!
It stands to reason that many of you that are in the "under 25 crowd" will be pushing DCC forward as time moves on. It's saddening that this MTH "Hot Box" will be dragged along for the ride.

I've been monitoring two DCC related yahoo groups. Unforutnately several DCC manufacturers are choosing to remain "tight lipped" about some product advancements as they are concerned that posting information could potentially entangle them into the tentacles of the "MTH vs.QSI lawsuit". This is one reason why it is difficult to get more detailed information from DCC manufactuer's regarding the latest developments. Can't say I blame them.

Those of you that attend Great American Train Shows, Greenburg Shows, and NMRA conventions Don't forget to let the MTH/RailKing dealers that attend these shows know your feelings regarding this situation. No need to get hostile, but let them know that you're sending a message back to MTH headquarters.

Peace out!

[Anonymous]

Disclaimer: I am not familiar with DCS, how it works or what its technical similarity is to NMRA DCC. I’m only thinking out loud.

Food for thought:

Could it be argued that MTH’s DCS is actually an implementation of the open-source DCC system as developed, designed and administrated by the NMRA? Extending this thought and running with it, could it not be argued that MTH is illegally charging for what is not their intellectual property? I am using the computer world as a reference in this with LINUX as the example. Companies like Red Hat, SUSE, etc cannot charge for the source code in LINUX, only the value added content and support they supply. So, again, could it be argued that MTH is claiming exclusive rights to patents that include technology that had previously been developed and been part of an open source / public domain technology? Could it be argued that MTH’s DCS is actually only IEEE 802.3 Ethernet transmitted over train rails?

[Don Gibson]

Antonio FP45. (affectionately referred to as "Tampa Tony'' )
Thank you for renewing my interest by posting this:

It would appear that Edelman (MTH) is trying to loosely patent bi-directional communication on DCC by getting there first, and avoiding the NMRA's wi***o have everybody contribute to standardization. Kaydee was pointed out as not going this route so everyone waited for the patents to run out before manufacturing competative knuckle couplers. Who among us can say KD was not thinking of KD when we used the fabulous 'horn-hooks'? My question is MTH's infringment problem is with QS Industries, so why are they suing QSI's customers? Perhaps therin lies their real motivation: Put QSI out of business by scaring off their customers. Next shoe?

EMF - Electro Magnetic Force is electricity from magnets. The only magnets in our engines are the motors themselves, and today's newer DCC products are including a feedback circuit from the motor's action to provide (blank).

20 years ago, Kenwood Audio had a proprietary amplifier circuit that monitored the movement of a cone loudspeaker and compared it to the output waveform of the amplifier, and (supposedly) corrected it to reduce cone distortion. - In short a feedback or BEMF circuit. It didn't seem to make any audible improvement (I owned one) but it blew out all my power transistors - while under warrantee.

I'm not privy to Tsunami, but their Surroundtraxx System uses Digitrax's EMF read to run an electronic 'balance control on an multi channel analog under-table audio sytem.
This was designed for smaller than HO scales that speakers would not fit in. it also provides for under 500Hz sound, which increases realism dramatically.

Lest anyone ru***o order this, expect it to add a thousand dollars or two to your layout.
Ah, the price of realism!

[AntonioFP45]

$1,000! That price would still come down eventually.

I think I'll stick with the 'onboard" sound systems.

[darth9x9]

One of the major problems with anything that comes out of MTH is that many of their business decisions are made on pride and not sound judgement based on market research. They often don't listen to what consumers want - only what MTH wants. They would to keep as possible proprietary.